iSixSigma

anonymous BB

Forum Replies Created

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #70099

    anonymous BB
    Participant

    I definately agree that if bonuses are to be awarded based on savings, the whole team should recieve a bonus (possibly even the same mout of bonus or the same proportion of their base salary.)
    Becasue of the slipperiness of rules for calculating savings (and cost avoidance savings are among the most slippery…), I believe that teams and BB’s should NOT be given bonuses based on savings.  I also think that BB’s should NOT be singled out because of their status as BB’s for monetary awards of any kind .  Policies of that sort destroy teamwork and cooperation more effectively than anything else but forced-ranking of employees. 

    0
    #70098

    anonymous BB
    Participant

    I agree.  I ended up pursuing and obtaining an MBA after a few years in engineering, because I wanted to know what the accountants knew, and how to get my projects past their “hurdles”.  Cost avaoidance is not “real” savings, and you can argue for years about the validity of one set of  “what counts” rules for vs. another. Never the less, it is also comparatively much easier to implement and has enormous leverage and organizational benefit.  
    The highly “subjective” nature of the rules for allocating costs (especially overhead and sunk capital costs) and cost savings is the major reason I’d argue against any organization giving BB’s bonuses based on savings.  The temptation to exaggerate savings claims to make the BB or the whole 6 Sigma program look good is too great – especially wher the 6 Sigma program director and/or the Accounting director are given executive bonuses under similar rules.

    0
    #70041

    anonymous BB
    Participant

    In my (very large) organization, they did not allow the people designated for BB training to be replaced by their “home” departments, nor did they transfer the personnel budgets, evaluation responsibilities or Champion role, even though projects were selected all over the place organizationally. .  In the technical / design/engineering areas, that means there was about a 7% hit to headcount working on the “everyday” tasks.  
    After 2 years, they have had to backpeddle a little and now say that it is up to the managers of the organization to appropriately “leverage” their BB’s to accomplish their individual department and group objectives as well as the objectives for BB savings / quality improvement.  This has resulted in seriously mixed messages to the BB’s and an even more huge problem with project selection. (The central 6 Sigma organization set one group of projects as top priority for BB’s, but only about 25% of the BB’s work for departments where these projects support “local” objectives.)
    The necessity of replacing the BB’s depends quite a lot on how lean your organization already is, and how well cross-trained the people are. You can phase in BB’s to minimize the “start up” impact on your organization, though I strongly suggest that you shouldn’t have less than 3 per site in order to give them a community or team identity. 
    Also, get the metrics right – are the BB’s supposed to support their old groups’ objectives, customer satisfaction, cost reduction or what.  Decide, communicate this decision clearly to all parties, and act consistent with the decision until or unless you change the policy. 
    Good luck.

    0
    #69993

    anonymous BB
    Participant

    Joe – I think you’re spot on, and it’s Stan who is clueless about DFSS. 
    But then again, I’m the DFSS expert in my organization who keeps carping about the iterative and inter-related nature of all design work / engineering – ESPECIALLY where you are designing processes which will be performed by the most highly variable “raw material” you normally get in manufacturing – people. 

    0
    #69992

    anonymous BB
    Participant

    Jim – In theory they certainly could be, but I don’t know of any examples.  I am a DFSS expert for a manufacturing firm, and the people who design our HR, purchasing, project management etc. systems do an extremely poor job of “designing” the transactional systems and processes associated with these functions.  Few or none of them are or anticipate becoming BB’s and they are near the end of the list for Green Belt training priority. As a matter of fact, our system for tracking prograess and savings for 6 Sigma is particularily poor / hard to use / inflexible / hard to learn.   

    0
    #69987

    anonymous BB
    Participant

    Look to your left on the screen.  A reasonable start is listed under Six Sigma Basics with the topic name “DMAIC or DMADV?”   Also, try a search using DFSS or Design for Six Sigma as the search parameters. 
     

    0
    #68231

    anonymous BB
    Participant

    I was fortunate enough to have read the original posting before it was pulled. Please note my GE service is less than 3 years, and I am not a long-term, disgruntled, change-resister. That said, the original post is full of truth. The Quality bureaucracy and metric gestapo that has sprung up to police projects, savings, and pitches is incredible. While DMAIC as I’ve seen it lived at GE (financial services area) has the veneer of VOC and customer focus, what I’ve seen tells me that the ability to CLAIM savings, a high “body count” for Belt training, and demonstrate Perfect Pitchology are far more important than TRUE customer deliverables that the customer actually feels (as opposed to changes in Sigma values and shifts on run charts that may or may not reflect actual customer experiences).
    I recently had to purchase a new clothes dryer. As an experiement, (and without identifying myself as a GE employee), I went to three different appliance stores and steered conversations to comparisons of GE products vs. competition. In all three cases, the salespeople steered me away from GE products. Reasons: the quality “isn’t there anymore;” too many corners have been cut; poor long-term reliability; they’re trading on their name and reputation. In two of the three cases I was steered to machines that cost the same or less than the GE product, so we’re not talking about trying to increase commissions here. I don’t want to stretch the analogy too far, but I took this experience as a metaphor for how Six Sigma as it’s lived (not preached) at GE may impact ( or not impact) REAL customers — as opposed to quality analysts. But I’ll bet there are dazzling dashboards and cockpits at Appliance that “show” high-quality machines rolling off the lines…….
    Sad, really. My Black Belt training led me to expect far more.

    0
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)